S v Director of Public Prosecutions

Magistrates have a wide discretion in case-management decisions, but justice requires an adjournment where the prosecution has failed to disclose material capable of affecting the fairness of the trial. The court must grant the adjournment unless satisfied that proceeding will cause the defendant no prejudice. Administrative convenience, delay, expense, and the attendance of witnesses cannot outweigh the need for a fair trial where the undisclosed material may materially affect the credibility of the prosecution’s essential witness. The appellate court may interfere where refusal of an adjournment is plainly wrong or unreasonable.

S appealed by way of Case Stated from the refusal of the Wigan Magistrates’ Court to adjourn his trial for common assault. The prosecution case depended entirely on the evidence of the complainant, S’s 16-year-old son. The prosecution had failed to disclose details of a pending Crown Court prosecution against the son, although those details might have affected his credibility and admissibility applications under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The magistrates refused an adjournment, proceeded to trial, and convicted S. The questions for the Administrative Court were whether the refusal was unreasonable and whether it deprived S of a fair trial under Article 6.1.

1. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. Both questions posed in the Case Stated were answered in the affirmative.
2. Magistrates are entitled to a wide measure of discretion in case-management decisions. They must consider the efficient dispatch of court business, and adjournments should not be granted unless the imperatives of justice require them.
3. That discretion has a firm limit. Where an adjournment is necessary to enable justice to be done following a failure by the prosecution to disclose material which ought to have been disclosed, the adjournment must be granted unless the court is satisfied that proceeding would cause the defendant no prejudice.
4. The undisclosed material concerned a pending prosecution which had raised serious questions about the witness’s credibility and possible propensity for violence. The prosecution case depended wholly on that witness’s evidence. The material might therefore have undermined the prosecution case, assisted the defence, and supported an application under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
5. The magistrates placed undue weight on the lateness of the application, the attendance of witnesses, the age of the allegation, and the desirability of avoiding further delay. Those considerations could not justify proceeding without disclosure where the defence had previously sought the information and the material might affect the fairness of the trial.
6. Lord Justice Scott Baker agreed with Mr Justice Openshaw. The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by way of Case Stated and quashed the conviction.
• Wigan Magistrates’ Court: refused an adjournment, proceeded to trial, and convicted S. The conviction was later followed by a conditional discharge for 12 months.